Removing CO2 from the Air? (aside from Calcium Hydroxide)

Nice thinking, kwhilborn, I knew you catch the value of the idea.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I'd also like to point out that there are several fast-growing varieties, like Chlorella that are especially high in protein. And there are others that produce substantial amounts of oil - and it's simple to extract.

And pay no attention to the village idiot, there are several effective ways of increasing the growth rate - despite what he says. The most obvious, of course, is aeration.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I mentioned it before, but note more clearly: Algae is like any other "crop" in that it requires CO2 and water, but much more water than most crops. Fresh water is much more limited than land. One always needs to consider the economics. I doubt that algae can even match growing cane, or even some trees, in tons of dry vegetable matter produced annually per surface acre used.

Sugar cane is one of about four plants that has developed a more efficient "four carbon" photosynthesis process. - Another reason why I think that algae can not match its productivity per acre.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sorry, Billy, but unlike cane, algae is not limited to fresh water. In addition, blue-green algae also fixes nitrogen from the air like land-based legumes do. And although blue-green algae is not edible for humans, there are many, many varieties of it that thrive in seawater making it another good candidate for my vegetative carbon sequestering suggestion.

Edit to add footnote: pound for pound of dry matter, no other form of vegetation produces more than algae.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Also... Sugar cane is a crop. I am trying to think in terms of a fresh air factory, or giant co2 filter.

series of lighted tunnels/tubes Vertical and horizontal aerated by the wind generated in "whichever method" they choose. The land space could be kept to a minimum as opposed to a "crop".

Also using Chlorella or whichever Algae is chosen would alter the Co2 in such a fashion that there would be no need to "bury" or otherwise dispose of the carbon.

It is my current understanding however that Algae does produce a toxin, and laughably the best way I have read "so far" is to remove this toxin is with a carbon filter. The water of course would be recycled, and added to.

This co2 removal idea could work on many levels, as it has two valued end products. a) save the world b) provide food/oil

Excellent idea READ ONLY.

I do think this idea might be overlooked at first because the norm for co2 removal is not for environmental protection, it is for co2 removal in gases. co2 sequestration in air has never been needed in our current evolution.

I still have not had time for the math of it. X number of algae (space) treats Y Volumes of air. I am assuming the space required would be fairly large, and every tube would need to end somewhere towards mature growths that would hinder lighting. I am still skeptical about whether it is practical in that regard, as I did read on the co2 removal link I posted much earlier that in order to keep up with co2 productio 3/4 of the worlds oceans would need to have seaweed (algae), also an option prefereable to mass deaths. also math considerations are quickest growing versus lighting capabilities and the proficiencies of each, etc.

Many forms of algae just need an area to latch onto, Perhaps THE MOST COST EFFECTIVE method would be simple wires strung across massive ocean floating frameworks (anchored), for floating oxygen farms. If large enough (thousands of square miles each) they could be floated/towed towards high hurricane areas and impede the hydrological cycle, or would they act as insulation and aid in evaporation? I'm betting the former, especially if we aimed at lighter coloured (sorry that is correct Canadian spelling of "Coloured") algae. As has been shown in Algae pond studies, some fish/shrimp thrive in Algae water, so we would also increase fish populations by providing food.

These floating frameworks could start with a simple anchor point, and have baseball size floats attached to 2 - 10 foot lengths of wire (or substitute), they would connect to each other at 2 points ever expanding, and huge networks could be assembled ashore and unrolled to connect to existing frameworks.

Every factory/Powerplant/car buyer, would have to "donate" a certain number of square miles of these simply built ocean oxygen farms, perhaps enough to "purify" quadruple their expected yearly outputs. This idea would need to be contributed to worldwide, and perhaps they could be harvested in cycles.

Please Note: I am not an alarmist; however I am assuming that Global Warming IS a threat. Perhaps it is not, I am solution minded, as in "plan for the worst, hope for the best".

End note: Algae currently provides almost 80% of the oxygen in our atmosphere.

Positives.
- The real estate value of the oceans is NILL.
- Construction costs per square mile would be negligable.
- Oxygen farms could help prevent or slow down Global warming.
- CO2 sequestration would not be necessary
- Fish populations would improve.
- Possible uses as Hurricane inhibitor ???? (not thought out)
- Shipping lanes are mostly established and lighthouse type frequency emitters could warn ships, not that they'd sink if they collided with one, but...
- It is a semi-NATURAL solution
- The farms could be towed to shore for harvesting in whichever country we choose, for food.
-the farms could be towed to shore for harvesting in whichever country we choose for OIL. The main drawback for Algae as use for fuel is the lack of harvesting available. Corn however is already being grown and is a more viable option at this time.
- voters would get a bang for their buck.

Negatives.
- Why should we pay for clean air for every other country?
- Possible disruptions of natural ecosystems under the ocean.i,e, whales trying to surface,etc. The "wires" used should be easily detached so they do not form a net.
- The low impact it would have as a pilot project. It would take years to develope structures capable of removing significant amounts of co2. We would litterally need hundreds of Farms say 100 miles by 100 miles
each. before we could start "breathing easy"

Just thinking out loud... You got me thinking READONLY.

This thread has progressed off topic, so I am starting a separate thread in EARTH SCIENCE, where it kind of belongs.

 

Or we could grow billions of tons of new hemp plants in a single season.

 

Or both. I am suggesting this is in conjunction with kyoto an whatever other methods they would like to employ, or we could all just smoke it and laugh about global warming if that's what you are implying. lol

 

I did not know there was much algae in the sea - Is it eaten by small fish, etc? Why do I not see more of it if it can grow there? Does not seem likely, to me, that man could significantly change the amount already in the sea. Do you have any ideas as to how that might be possible?

Just tonight on CNN (or perhaps BBC) I heard that the rain forest in Brazil is in danger with the climate warming, may dry from lack of rain and burn. They said it alone stores 15 years of global fossil carbon release by man. - Thus, a very bad thing if 15 years worth of CO2 gets released in a few months of massive fire! Because of this, and other reasons, I find it hard to believe your edit added footnote, but do not really understand how, and to what, you are comparing. "Produces more" What? per acre? per day? Can you state your claim more clearly?

 

I can tell you how much algae is in the sea. As much as the sea can carry and as much as doesn't get eaten.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algae

The above is a wikipedia link to Algae.

A common type of Algae is various forms of "SEAWEED". The name seaweed itself implies that much grows in the sea.

According to the wikipedia link above 73-87% of our oxygen comes from algae

 

Billy, I clearly said it produces more on a pound-per-pound basis - meaning comparing what you had at one point to what you have now.

And just a wee bit of research would have taken you a long way. I grabbed this article at random from a Google search: http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache...ae reproduction rate&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8&gl=us

and the pertinent point it contains is this: "Algomed is the sole organism and uni-cellular species of algae, with a rapid reproduction rate (it reproduces four-fold every 17 hours). "

So in just 17 hours you will have four times what you began with. Can you match that with cane or anything else????

 

Carbon dioxide is about .04 percent of the Earth's atmosphere. That's one part in 2500. I don't think that it is physically possible for it to be responsible for global warming and at that rate it sounds like plants and algae have already sucked it down to the max. I'm surprised that they can work on such a trace gas.

 

oh? do you really? well using that thinking i'm going to say the following satire:

As we can learn by looking at terrestrial environments when there is a competition for food or rescources in general, no one gets enough food and there is a massive die-off. The lack of CO2 in the air means that plants are competing for the gas. I propose that we immediatley begin putting out more CO2 to help make sure all the plants have anough energy. Or we could chop down a large amount of forest to help combat the problem. Either way we must do soemthing about the alarming low low amount of CO2 in the atmosphere

You see? such blatant stupidity leads to stupid comments and while most people here remain unaffected by such things, you would be amazed at how many people out there would believe you. Having such a low percentage of CO2 just shows you just how influential the gas is. Wait a second, isnt the
CO2 seperate from the atmosphere? I thought i t was like a seperate little blanket, or in this case, big blanket.

Read-only,

I got thinking about your algae idea and it sounds like a good one. If you run for president or some influential position, i'll be sure to vote for you.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

about water hyacinths though, can they even remove heavy metals like lead or mercury? or are the limited to lighter things?

 

Thank you, Positron. I'll be the candidate with the shamrock in my lapel and the crest on my jacket will contain an Erlenmeyer flask, Bunsen burner and a large X made of glass tubing.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Yes, they remove practically all heavy metals: nickle, chromium, lead, mercury, cadmium and others.

By the way that was a nice piece of satire.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

It did a good job of pointing out the silliness of such shallow thinking - I enjoyed it.

 

* Zirconia Electrolysis

Zirconia Electrolysis cell at 800 to 1000deg C, will take in carbon dioxide, and release oxygen.

http://ares.jsc.nasa.gov/HumanExplore/Exploration/EXLibrary/docs/ISRU/08Atmos.htm

 

Thanks for the link

 

Hello, Dragon,

Yes, that will certainly work but you'll notice it's designed for very extreme conditions - like on the surface of Mars as described in this article.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

It's not at all practical for use here on Earth to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Note the extremely high temperature! That takes a TON of energy to maintain! Basically, it's breaking the chemical bond that was formed when the carbon was oxidized by replacing the energy that was given off in that original chemical reaction.

You should also note that it's an incomplete process because it doesn't produce carbon and oxygen - rather it produces oxygen and carbon monoxide. Again, not desirable for applications such as being discussed here since NO carbon is being removed.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Fine for creating breathable oxygen on Mars, though.

 

Positron, not only did you fail to make sense, you also had to be insulting when no one was insulting you.

It is a very intelligent question to ask just how much difference it can make when you are dealing with a "greenhouse gas" that only makes up one part in 2500 of the atmosphere, or 400 parts per million.

When you get insulting because I ask an intelligent question, all you are saying is that I am going against a doctrine that you hold more dear than facts or reason. You are also saying things about yourself that I would rather not hear coming out of my mouth.

 

or is it off of your fingers? I did not insult you, I simply pointed out something that I observed. How you took it is not my problem.

You did not "ask" the question. You said how you thought it must be impossible for the gas to cause global warming. Here's what you said exactly: "I don't think that it is physically possible for it to be responsible for global warming" that does not sound like a question to me. There was not even a single question mark in your post anyways.

Fail to make sense?! I suppose you are referring to my satire. obviously you don't know the meaning of the word then. Read some literature by Jonathan Swift then we'll talk again.

 

Don't even bother with him, Positron. He thinks he should jump into every thread and insert comments even though he know nothing about the topic. And he never asks questions - just spouts off out of ignorance, His knowledge of Earth sciences is worse than weak, it's practically nonexistent. If you look back up several posts ago, you'll see where he tried to tell us that simply burying organic material in the soil (something farmers have been doing for a very long time) locks up the CO2 contained in it. That makes it pretty obvious that he's never even heard of soil bacteria, fungi, or even earthworms!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Pretty sad case, that guy.

 

Steel slag to remove CO2

using steel slag, which is a byproduct of the steel manufacturing process and has very little market value, to extract the carbon dioxide. The result is the production of calcium carbonate (limestone) and hydrated slag, both of which can be sold and used by other industries.

http://www.azom.com/details.asp?newsID=2920

"Mineral CO2 Sequestration by Steel Slag Carbonation"

http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi/esthag/2005/39/i24/abs/es050795f.html